Cartooning a black presidential candidate in 2008
Nick Anderson, The Houston Chronicle:Editorial cartoons are powerful in shaping public opinion and inciting powerful reactions (just ask bin Laden). America has shamelessly rendered every minority in offensive caricatures and as a result skewing representation and often times perpetuating prejudice. This year the Democrats have the rare opportunity to choose between two historic presidencies, an African-American man or a woman. It looks as if the race will continue for a while and the contenders, Obama and Clinton, will be appearing regularly in editorial cartoons. A question in the back of my mind:
How does one draw an editorially powerful cartoon without ascribing to racist or sexist characteristics?
Thankfully this question has already been posed and answered by Pam Platt from Courier Journal and touched on by NPR.
Here are some quotes from cartoonists in Platt's article:
Jeff Parker, Florida Today in Melbourne, Fla.: "I think a cartoonist can more easily get away with exaggerating gender than they can exaggerating race. We've all seen some particularly wicked cartoons of Sen. Clinton over the years. Is there a double standard? Perhaps. That's where the cartoonist's personal, inner voice needs to kick in. Editorial cartoons are supposed to ridicule and exaggerate, and there'll always be people who'll be offended by them. I prefer to make sure that I get complaints for my stand on a particular issue and not the way I drew a candidate's lips or fanny."
Ann Telnaes, Washington, D.C.-based syndicated cartoonist: "I believe it's much more problematic with race. In this day and age, we're much more aware of racial bias than gender because gender bias can be so much more subtle, and has been a part of our culture for so long. During the 1992 election, I remember very well the depictions of Hillary Clinton in editorial cartoons and in the media as a whole. While I have no problem with ed cartoons attacking Hillary for her policy stance or political tactics (which I have done and will continue to do), a majority of them only made the point that she was an aggressive type of woman, a witch and a bitch . . . "
The last question from Platt:
"A number of cartoonists have drawn President Bush with ape-like physical attributes, and this newspaper has printed a number of those cartoons. Why is it OK for Bush, but not for a candidate of color?"
Nick Anderson, The Houston Chronicle: "A little girl once asked me why I made George Bush look like a monkey. I said, 'I didn't make him look like a monkey, God made him look like a monkey.' I can say that, with tongue in cheek, and I can draw him that way, because we don't have a pernicious, racist history of depicting rich, powerful white guys as monkeys. If we did, well, I'd have to reconsider."
Telnaes: "In editorial cartooning, while you want to make a strong point you also have to make sure the point is actually the one you intended to make. The problem with depicting an African-American candidate the same way (even if your criticisms are the same as you have of Bush) is that all the historical baggage comes with it; the point you're intending to make will be overshadowed. That's where your skills as an editorial cartoonist have to come in -- you must make conscious decisions about what visual metaphor you're going to use in order to get the point you want to make come across."
Diana Jou
posted by tarandfeather at 10:47 PM
0 comments
